Editorial change: "non-resolution" to "self-reference"

["Drummond Reed" <drummond.reed@onename.com>]

As we continue to prepare the final working draft (now slated to be 09
after Gabe's posting of 08 today), I'd like to put to rest a lingering
terminology issue: the term "non-resolvable". We have found numerous
times now that this term creates confusion because, as Gabe says, what
we really mean when we use it to describe an XRI is
"not-to-be-resolved".

In other words, "non-resolvable" DOESN'T mean the XRI CAN'T be resolved,
it simply means in this context that the purpose of the XRI is only to
determine equivalence and thus it should not be dereferenced.

Examples:

	xri:@foo
	xri:(@foo)

The former is intended to be resolved to the resource identified by
"@foo". The latter is a way of expressing that resolution is NOT
intended, and that the XRI merely expresses "the identifier with the
value '@foo'".

We have never disagreed that this is useful, we just haven't known
exactly what to call it. As we have written many times (and as David
Booth illustrated in his white paper about the different uses of URIs
that we cited in the XRI Requirements doc), what we intend by the term
"non-resolution" is same thing accomplished in English language by
putting a word in quotes, e.g., "the word "user-friendly" has become
commonplace in computer literature". 

It finally hit me what this really is: a self-reference. Since the whole
purpose of an identifier is to serve as a reference to a resource, we
need special syntax - in both human and computer languages - for the
special case when we DON'T mean "the thing being identified", but
instead mean "the identifier itself", i.e., a self-reference.

I've already begun using this term in several documents describing this
feature of XRIs and it works like a charm - simply substitute
"self-reference" for "non-resolvability" and "self-referential" for
"non-resolvable". It works especially well because cross-reference
syntax is already a key feature of XRIs, and now we can list
self-reference syntax alongside it.

So the formal proposal is to make the terminology substitution above
beginning with the 09 draft. Any objections, please post ASAP - silence
will be deemed consensus.

=Drummond